[MUSIC] Is power still powerful? That's a question, if we take into account our present world, economic crises difficult to define good solutions and efficient solutions to the economy crisis. Is power powerful? American defeat in Vietnam. In Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya. Is power powerful? Deadlocked in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Is power powerful? All these issues are clearly demonstrating that power is not really adapted to our present world. Or more exactly the traditional vision of power is no more adapted to the new condition of a global order. We have to admit that power experienced many transformations and has to face new adaptations which were rather difficult. Let's have a look on how recent history stakes were drawn in the international arena by peoples and societies. Society's social actors are more and more present in the international arena. Is power, powerful? When it has to face societies as it was when you had to face on the other States. The traditional vision of power is perfectly adopted to an inter State competition. But is it adapted to competition between state and societies, between state actors and non state actors. Second transformation, the rising role of countries. The traditional role in international arena during the 19th century, but also the later part of the 20th century, was a mono-cultural arena in which all the main actors were sharing the same culture. What about this new international arena, in which different actors coming from different cultures are competing? Is then the traditional power so fruitful, and so efficient, so powerful that it was previously? Now third transformation, the proliferation of states when UN was created in 1945 it was created by 51 states. Now there are 193 states in UN. Is it possible to use power when such a proliferation created micro state for which the competition didn't have the same meaning. Is power now working when bipolarity has collapsed. Bipolarity was supporting that traditional vision of power. Bipolarity was structured around two major powers, two super powers, US and USSR. Now bipolarity is over, we are in a post bipolar world. And in this post bipolar world it's very hard, difficult. First to find a new hierarchy of powers but also to define the rule of a clear competition between states which are so different. And overall power had to face the globalization as a new world order. And globalization is questioning the traditional concept of power. First, because globalization introduced interdependence. Interdependence is playing a major role in international relations, and is even the substitute to sovereignty. Sovereignty was holding a very clear power competition but what about interdependence? When states are more and more interdependent, the economic level but also at the cultural level, but also at the social level, what power is able to do? That's a question. What are the statues of power in the world of interdependence? Is power still acting when states are so interplaying with such a density, is power still powerful when sovereignty is decreasing? Is power still powerful when coercion is less and less efficient, as we can observe for instance about the sanctions? When sanctions are taken by powerful states these sanctions are playing against those who are deciding them. What about power? When we are to face an increasing number of actors. The status of power is clear when you have a small number of competing actors. But what about now when we have not only 193 state actors, but when we have potentially 7 billion individuals playing in the international arena. Is power powerful when it has to face individuals and social actors? And what about power facing the new way of communication, the new instrument of communication. The new technology in which individuals are able to get in touch with each other and so are able to structure a new kind of social and international social relations. Power is probably not adapted in it's traditional version to face these new kind of situation. And the real case question is what about power in a world in which states have no more the monopoly of the international function. Ladies and gentlemen, four of these very high, but underestimated transformations. First, media power is more and more powerless. We caught all of that during the Decolonization War when France was defeated by the small Vietnamese army in Dien Ben Fu. But US experienced the same when US was defeated in 1975 in Vietnam. But the same for Somalia, the same for Afghanistan, the same for Iraq. And so on, the same for Libya. Is military power adapted to this new conditions, probably not. The second question is is soft power clear and efficient of state hood. When US was defeated in Vietnam some American like Joseph Nigh, and Robert Hughing elaborated the concept of soft power. And established the hypothesis that when hard power is no more working soft power can be considered as a substitute. Soft power is a strong power probably for diffusing the dominant culture, the cultural of the super power. But the question is if you drink Coca Cola or if you wear blue jeans do you for these reasons support the American foreign policy? The reality that there is transitivity between support you give to a soft power and the support which is expected in the field of diplomacy and foreign policy. The third question is what about power in a world in which protest is playing more and more Earth-central and a major role. There are, in our present world, so many new protest diplomacies or deviant diplomacies in which protesting the gains and hegemony is much more important that proposing a new international order. Is the traditional vision of power able to face this new culture of international protest? It's quite clear that it couldn't, and so the real problem in our present and global world is what hegemony now does mean? Robert Gilpin and the Charles Kindleberger elaborated the concept of a trembling stability in which they put that, Germany was the only way for ordering An interdependent world. That was probably true during the 20th century, but is it so clear and obvious by now? That's the problem. Is Germany now a stabilizer or is Germany destabilizing the world? That's to say first Germany is not able to work. And it's failing, but the second point is that when Germany is too much evident, is too much visible, the risk is high that this Germany creates instability, protest, conflict, tensions into Americanism and war. That's why the Obama administration moved to another concept. The famous concept of smart power. In which hard power is considered to be restricted, to be limited and to be mixed with very cautious use of soft power. This concept of smart power leads to the idea of a light footprint the super power is supposed now to leave only a light footprint on the international order. And to the concept of leadership from behind, leading from behind, that's to say to be much less ambitious in the definition of the new international order. That is clearly revising conception of a Germany in which a Germany is lessened, in which a Germany is questioned, in which a Germany is challenged, and in which we have to reconsider the real capacity of power. [MUSIC]
